In the art world, "psychology" often receives bad press, while "theory" receives the favors and kind attentions: an artwork that is supposed to illustrate a new theory will be valorized, blessed with a new aura, while an artwork that seems conspicuously motivated by psychological reasons will struggle to retain our attention. However, isn't it exactly there that we can recognize the permanence of these motivations that are precisely psychological? What about the artists' motivations? Would their readings keep track of them?

Psychologie bibliologique owes its title to the ephemeral discipline founded by Nicolas Roubakine at the beginning of last Century, pursuing the "scientific study of a book, its circulation, its use and its influence." The publication consists of facsimiles of the pages of books that ten artists - who, in the sixties and the seventies, witnessed the renewal of the humanities: psychoanalysis, Marxism, anti-psychiatry... - agreed to share. Ten artists who precisely think and create outside of the subject, the same subject for which psychology was criticized because it pretended it could positively determine the scope. These pages allow us to have a look at the potential origin of an artist's specific artwork or his whole body of works. An origin that is the own act of a subject. Which is a question of psychology, again.